Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday July 23, 2009 @06:40PM
from the must-save-many-megawatts-to-outweigh dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times has an interesting story on the logistical problems involved in transporting disassembled towers that will reach more than 250 feet in height from ports or factories to the remote, windy destinations where the turbines are erected. In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs. In Texas the constant truck traffic is tearing up small roads in the western part of the state where the turbines are being rapidly erected. And in Maine a truck carrying a big piece of turbine got stuck for hours while trying to round a corner near Searsport."

"'It left a nice gouge in Route 1,' said Ben Tracy, who works nearby at a marine equipment store and saw the incident. On a per-turbine basis, the cost of transportation and logistics generally varies from around $100,000 to $150,000, said John Dunlop, an engineer with the American Wind Energy Association, and experts say that transportation logistics are starting to limit how large — and as a result how powerful — wind turbines can get. There is talk of breaking a blade up into multiple pieces, but 'that's a very significant structural concern,' says Peter Stricker, vice president at Clipper Windpower who added that tower bases were getting too large to squeeze through underpasses. But a partial solution may be at hand. While vast majority of turbine parts now travel by truck, in Texas and elsewhere, some wind companies are looking to move more turbine parts by train to save money. But even the train routes must avoid low overpasses when big pieces of wind turbines are aboard. 'It's not your typical rail-car shipments,' said Tom Lange, a Union Pacific spokesman."

Pick your favorite large dirigible, and study how short its life was and what happened to it.

I'll pick three: three of the last four airships built by Luftschiffbau Zeppelin

#1 LZ-127, the Graf Zeppelin [wikipedia.org]: 11 years of safe, reliable operation, including a flight around the world and a million miles of passenger service. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.#2 LZ-126/ZR-3, the USS Los Angeles [wikipedia.org]: 10 years of safe, reliable operation. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.#3 LZ-130, the Graf Zeppelin II [wikipedia.org]: two years of safe, reliable operation. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.

The big threat to properly-designed rigid airships seems to be World War II. Now that it's over, new airships shouldn't have any trouble.

It's not a question of cherry-picking. Lightning does not ignite dirigibles because they're filled with hydrogen, which does not ignite unless mixed with oxygen. Most dirigibles of the time passed through thunderstorms and were hit by lightning repeatedly, without harm. The problem is that these ships vent hydrogen when landing. If struck then, the ships could ignite. Fortunately, modern blimps don't use hydrogen at all, so there's no chance of them being ignited by lightning.

A few weeks back, I watched an entire wind farm go by on a single train. Blimps are more maneuverable than trains and are better at accessing remote country, sure, but you just can't get the same sort of throughput.

They might blow it. That's why some here have suggested using a Chinook. I won't regale you with the reasons. The question is, what's the best time to move one of these suckers? Definitely neither Christmas nor'Easter.

If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour.
The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous.
Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chanc

If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour.

The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous.

Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.

I don't think a distillation column is designed to be light as possible and catch wind. That probably makes a huge difference. I've seen these things driving down the road going up and down HW 35 near Austin and they are freaking HUGE! Imagine the difficulty in driving a 150 ft wing 60 mph in high wind. It's not the same thing as hauling distillation equipment.

I suppose the difference between windmill shipment and distillation column shipment are the destinations.A petro chemical plant is situated near highways. And same probably for the distillation column manufacturer.

But windmill destinations are way out in the boonies through small towns and smaller roads.

FTS: " In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs"

Actually, it's a good thing they're running into the overpasses that need repairs. It'll kick start the process. However, if they were to run into an overpass that was brand new, or that had just finished being repaired... Oh Boy! Somebody would be in trouble.

Actually, it's a good thing they're running into the overpasses that need repairs. It'll kick start the process. However, if they were to run into an overpass that was brand new, or that had just finished being repaired... Oh Boy! Somebody would be in trouble.

Yep. When I read about that my first thought was that I detected the scent of cooking pork. You send the driver down a road you know he can't manage, perhaps misreporting the height of his load to him. Turbine must be rebuilt, producing more revenues; bridge is damaged, leading to a repair job, more revenues.

Where I live the helicopter they use to run around and find plants was recently damaged during a training run by someone who regularly destroys vehicles. I suspect he's the designated vehicle-destroyer.

Someone want to calculate the minimum safe stopping distance of a wide-load truck laden with a 50-meter section of tower traveling at, let's say 45MPH without jackknifing or breaking the load restraints?

IMO, the problem isn't the truck drivers, it's either failure to properly plan the route by the companies, or else improper height measurements. Those signs on the overpasses are for surveying the route, and not really effective as a last-minute warning.

It's not just common sense, in most states oversize loads are required to have scout and chase vehicles. When I was a teenager a few times I drove a scout car with a flexible fiberglass pole the height of the load being carried plus one inch ahead of an over-height load. Supposedly the route was clear but it was still a required precaution.

Since when is a lazy/incompetent trucking company the wind power industry's fault?

You don't have to lay them on extendable flat beds or standard low boys. Wind towers are very strong and can support themselves. Many times a wind tower trailer is nothing more then a goose neck and dolly designed to utilize the tower section as the trailer. Only air, hydraulic and electric lines are ran through the tower section for control. With this setup you can adjust the tower height so you can get it a few inches from the ground if necessary or raise it up to clear obstacles. Though some parts cant w

I very surprised at the overpass problems.. Truckers are very aware of clearance heights.. and these oversize loads have extra eyes, as they have escort vehicles. It's pretty easy to map out your route and check the clearance on every overpass on the map.. I think this story has been exaggerated a bit.. I figure 6 trucks (possibly) per wind turbine.. 3 of these are definitely oversize (the blades), but I am not so certain the other peices are not hauled on regular flatbeds.. at 6 trucks and $150,000 that's

Actually, not every bridge posts its clearance. Pay attention sometime, you'll see quite a few that don't.

Add to the the fact that the signs are rarely accurate. Overpass says 13'9"? Better go slow - if they've put another layer of asphalt on since they put up the sign, it's probably more like 13'6", which is the height of a standard box trailer.

Where was the escort driver? You know, the guy driving the little crappy car with the pole strapped to its bumper? The guy that's supposed to be warning the trucker of low bridges? The guy the trucker has to trust implicitly in order to go down the road?

And while yes, trucker quality did go down somewhat a few years back when the big carriers started putting people through two week trucking schools, the reason we hang out in the passing lane is because of all the slow assholes in cars in the other lanes. They can accelerate from 55 to 65 in a couple seconds. It takes us up to a minute or so, depending on conditions. Get rid of the people who think 40mph is an appropriate freeway driving speed and we'll be more than happy to return to the righthand lane - all we want to do is maintain a constant speed.

It still is, I just went through one of those for "retraining" because I hadn't driven in over 6 months. All they taught was enough to pass the DOT backing, safety inspection, and road test. The rest of safe driving we were supposed to learn while team driving with a "trainer" for 30 days. The trainer was most likely a driver who had six months driving experience or a little more. The training consisted of the trainer sleeping until his shift to drive while I drove, then doing a little workbook review with me, then driving out his shift while I drove. As you can imagine, not very helpful.

The other thing people forget about the truckers is that they are also their own secretary, maintenance man, planner, etc. In a ten hour day driving, there is usually 2-3 hours more of work to do after that. Trucking is not just about driving.

And while yes, trucker quality did go down somewhat a few years back when the big carriers started putting people through two week trucking schools, the reason we hang out in the passing lane is because of all the slow assholes in cars in the other lanes. They can accelerate from 55 to 65 in a couple seconds. It takes us up to a minute or so, depending on conditions.

It's been my observation as a non-trucker that the majority of the non-truckers on the road treat you guys like shit. Pulling in front of 18 wheelers and forcing them to slow down, riding in your blind spots, pulling alongside when you need to swing wide to make a right-turn, etc, etc. It drives me nuts when people pull this crap and I've never even driven an 18-wheeler. It just seems pretty damn rude and inconsiderate.

For what it's worth I always stay out of your way and am happy to flash my lights to signal that the lane is clear when you are trying to change lanes. I don't think your profession gets the respect it deserves.

Underpasses are often at a dip in the road - when you have a long vehicle, you won't have both front and rear tires in the dip at the same time. When the bus is halfway through the bridge, the distance between the dip and the bridge is irrelevant.

And no, they don't necessarily measure the bridge from the lowest point, or highest point, or any point. They measure it wherever they feel like measuring it that particular day. There's no standar

Shit man. The article (or summary) doesn't imply that crap at all. The article doesn't cast any judgment, other than the current situation is not optimal, and that things can be done, and things are being done. You guys are shifting more production to domestic, which is bound to fix some shit. Don't need to get super defensive whenever real problems are pointed out about your favourite technology. They aren't crippling problems, and the article never implies it. But they are problems that should be faced no

How much carnage does the average coal mine produce? Typically ripping apart a huge, huge chunk of the countriside (for open cut), innumerable trucks and other big machines trundling around, not to mention the massive construction required for the actual power generation plant itself.

This type of story strikes me as particularly stupid: "big objects hard to move around" doesn't equate to "wind power worse than other types of power" as the summary seems to imply.

I also find it hard to believe that the truck traffic for installing windmills is coming through at such a huge volume that it is actually degrading any half-decent road. That would involve tens of thousands of trucks, surely?

And how much carnage does oil produce? It's not as though trucks carrying gasoline never crash, and oil tankers never spill. Gas stations sometimes blow up, oil wells sometimes catch fire. All that stuff causes damage and costs money.

But now what's causing these problems? Truck drivers not paying attention to whether they have enough clearance? Infrastructure being unlabeled or mislabeled as to how much clearance is there is? Figure it what's causing the problem and try to fix it. This isn't really

This is off the top of my head, but I think the wear on the road goes up with the cube of the weight. So a couple trucks carrying heavy cargo could do the same damage as a whole lot of smaller cars. And those wind turbines don't look small or light . ..

But this seems more of a planning and transportation issue with moving large, heavy objects as opposed to an issue specific to wind turbines themselves.

This is indeed a logistical problem, and not an inherent problem. It's also not a problem with weight.

Wind turbines and wind towers for those turbines are very different. Towers are large and bulky, built to be structurally sound. Interstate laws require that only so much weight can be put on any given set of wheels. Heavy, illegally-running trucks (liquid haulers, etc) can easily get much heavier, on fewer wheels. The weight problem is already managed, and oversize trucks are routinely checked, where other trucks aren't as much.

If smaller roads that happen to carry large amounts of truck traffic are getting torn up, then it's not surprising, given that trucks are trucks. This Texas road in specific is notorious for being undermaintained, and the Highway Department can whine, but they know they need to do something.

I seriously doubt that this remark about 'a big gouge in Route 1' was because of weight, but rather because of size. Perhaps it clipped an overpass. Perhaps (god forbid) it actually slid off the truck. Accidents are remembered, but gradual wear and tear on a road isn't an 'accident' that happens all at once.

Putting a truck laden with a section of tower can clog up a heavy construction area for hours. Can you plan around that? Yes, but only so much. Incidents will happen, and I distinctly remember one of these trucks knocking down all the cones in a construction area, because it was either the cones or the signs.

This is 'routine' logistical work for any oversize hauler. If someone's screwing up, fingers are easy to point. It may be the driver, or it may be that construction crew that was lazy with their cones, but it's manageable, up to a point. If you can't get it through no matter which route you take, it's too big to transport.

For states back east, it's messier still because the roads are smaller (you can't fit one of these around most of those corners) and the clearances are sized to match.

Eventually, wind tower construction companies are going to have to mobilize. Contract for several years here, and several years there, and it makes more sense to actually relocate the manufacturing facility for large products to save costs.

Eventually, wind tower construction companies are going to have to mobilize. Contract for several years here, and several years there, and it makes more sense to actually relocate the manufacturing facility for large products to save costs.

Which means they will have to transport the very large equipment required to build these towers and such, so I am not so sure that is the answer. Most are already built relatively close to where they are being installed to begin with.

This is off the top of my head, but I think the wear on the road goes up with the cube of the weight.

The most common rule is that erosion is proportional to the fourth power of axle load. I like to crank that one out when truck advocates tell me not to ride my bicycle.

The problem with heavy loads on narrow country roads is that you can use a truck with lots of axles, but then turning becomes an issue. Makes me wonder if there is a market for something like a giant centipede. It could have 10 or 20 hydraulically actuated legs. Only one leg would move at a time. It could step right over a low fence and deliver heavy components directly to a construction site in the middle of a field.

Road failure is sort-of binary - everything is fine until the failure, at which point all goes to hell pretty quickly. Not quite that simple, but pretty close - soil has a failure point which is sudden and catastrophic. The pavement will hold together for a while after the base and subbase have failed, but not long.

Now to your other point:

Americans in particular are willing to accept almost any amount of destruction as long as it happens someplace else. Rip the top off of a mountain in Apalachia and pois

This type of story strikes me as particularly stupid: "big objects hard to move around" doesn't equate to "wind power worse than other types of power" as the summary seems to imply.

Maybe you're reading a different summary than I did. Maybe you're reading the summary differently. What I read was simply that wind power was not all sweetness and light like some in the eco movement would have us believe. Those that slam on minute amounts of radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant don't bat an eye on the primary (making the thing) or secondary (transporting) or even tertiary (road damage requiring massive amounts of oil to repair) costs of wind power. Heck, these aren't mentioned at all, as if turbines appear out of nothingness in their desired positions, with all the required power-grid infrastructure also magically appearing. I didn't read it to say this is worse than other forms of generating energy, merely that we need this information to have a factual, objective discussion about energy production on this planet.

Yes, "big objects: hard to move around" is obvious when you stop and think about it. The problem is, too many people don't stop and think about the repercussions of their ideology. We all need to, both eco-whackos and global-warming-deniers, and everyone in between, if we're going to have a chance at survival on this planet.

So let me make sure I have this right: you're comparing a 1.2kW 30' consumer grade single household turbine to a 200-250' 3-5MW commercial wind turbine? You're not serious are you? Let me do a little math.... The Windspire turbine is 2000 to 4000 times smaller than the commercial power plants the NYT article is discussing.

Aerisyn has been here in my hometown for a number of years. They are expanding like crazy right now, and occupy space formally held by Combustion Engineering (Who went way to far into nuclear in the '70's and went broke). The facility languished as manufacturing jobs in the fair burg of Chattanooga went away, but Combustion had been around for many years, and during WW2 built ship boilers for the war effort. So, being located on the Tennessee River, Combustion had their own port, which is now being refurbished and Aerisyn and Alstom ( I think are going to share the port to ship stuff).

So it doesn't have to really go on the highway unless the tower factories are located in a place that doesn't have access to shipping. Of course rivers and waterways only go so far and sooner or later the towers have to hit the road.

The insurance policies should cover this damage - wait, they DID ship them with insurance, right?

The insurance companies, once they get fed up of paying for wrecked turbine parts and bridges, will start demanding competent drivers for the trucks, or they won't insure. Therefore the trucking companies will have a choice - deal with the union so they stop providing idiots who don't bother checking the height of their load and their maps, or they can pay the repairs out of their pockets.

I am sick to death of hearing low-watt right-wingers touting capitalism as a panacea for the world.

Well, if you're sick of hearing the opinions of other people Mr. Know It All, perhaps the internet isn't for you. I might suggest you move to North Korea, they don't do capitalism at ALL there and in fact, you probably won't get internet either, so you won't have to listen to anyone else. That way you kill two birds with one stone.

These are very special hauling requirements, so they require a much more specialized design. I am uneasy about that generic hauling truck trailer shown in the picture.

1. If the blades are 50 yards long, then designing a hauling truck like an old fire engine ladder truck might be better. Those had a rear cab and movable wheel carriages in the back.2. Also the trailer design in the picture is horrible regarding height. Design a trailer with lengthwise side support that allows blades to travel four or five feet lower. This could also incorporate hydraulic lifting to raise the trailer over bumps and low spots. Think lowrider cars that jump up.3. Additional tires on the truck and trailers to distribute weight and save the roadways. Heavy equipment haulers here in TX once in a while have as many as 50 wheels per tractor\trailer(s). For max wheels see this site (the bottom picture).http://www.goodtransportationinc.com/ [goodtransp...ioninc.com]4. I hope for low interstate overpasses that trucks could exit, then take the service road up, over (and adjacent) to the interstate then return to the interstate.5. And a lead car with laser height and side measurement device to alert the hauling convoy of incorrect, changed, or terrain shifted height/side measurements.

When I worked on road systems we installed simple IR light interruption height sensors before bridges. The sensor triggers a warning sign so the driver knows they are over height. Of course some drivers have this idea that the warnings are always set a metre too low. Most of our low bridges have sacrificial steel beams fitted before the bridge. That way the expensive concrete doesn't get hit.

At the end of the day the truck driver should know how high their load is.

In the USA (here TX only), I have not seen much construction like you describe. Especially the height warning signs. Most highways here have two height signs and a fairly generous clearance. But no specialized IR light interruption warning signs. And certainly no sacrificial beams. In lieu of sacrificial beams, TXDOT found that the pillars were vulnerable so care was put in directing wayward trucks away from the support pillars.

Living in Texas, with oil and gas, wells I can personally attest to damage done by service trucks to our road. This is due to to constant need to move the product to market, or service the water that comes from the wells (yes gas and oil wells produce water too).

I have seen these trucks that carry the crude oil from gas wells get into accidents. I have seen bridges totally destroyed from burning oil under them (concrete breaks down under the extreme heat).

Do we write about the millions of dollars in damage our oil trucks create yearly? Or do we single out a few accidents in trucking, carrying oversize loads instead.

Do we even hear about the oversize building moments that tie up traffic? Do we hear about the daily fatal accidents from truck accidents? Or do we single out a few trucks that just happened to be carrying wind turbine parts?

They're not far from Coburn Gore which has a border crossing, and they're putting the turbines in on the western edge of the mountains. Looking at the terrain and roads on Google Maps, it looks like the Canadian side of the border is much flatter and has much straighter roads (because it's not mountainous)You might even be able to bring them in closer on barges to cut down the truck distance, though that would depend on the port facilities.

Hire transportation firms experienced in hauling oversized loads. The photo in the NYT article of the long load is pretty pathetic. Here in timber country (before the spotted owls screwed it all up), long logs were moved with a steerable rear trailer.

In Oregon we actively work with companies installing turbines to make it as easy as possible to transport & install them. We work with the manufactured housing builders as well, but that's another story. Unlike Texas with its oil, or other states and their coal, we don't have locally buried hydrocarbons adding to our economy, so we are happy for the economic benefit from these installations. We've had one wind turbine generator fall of around a corner, while inside a tunnel, which did wedged things up.

I understand what these truckers go through everyday. My company is currently hauling the largest I-beam bridge girders ever built in the midwest. The beam alone is 186 feet long which puts us at an overall length around 240-260 feet.
The current issue is the routing provided by each states permitting offices. Some will have you scout the route and hand it in to them so they can authorize it with a permit. But, others will not do that and force you onto the worst roads you could ever be on.
Another issue is the rest of traffic on the road. We have fools on a regular basis act like idiots around us especially when we are making a turn. But, we usually have police assistance for the bigger loads to stop the idiots out there.

I often wonder why they build them with a single-stem trunk? Surely a triple- or quadruple-stem trunk could give added stability with a lower materials cost, and greater ease of transportation, if greater assembly time.

For that matter, why not have two (or, of course, more) propellar sets one above the other? Harness not too much less than double the amount of power without needing larger individual propellar blades.

I'm sure there are fundamental reasons why these wouldn't work, but I'm not an engineer.

Tubes are extremely strong, so you don't really need multiples. Plus, all of these turbines have the capability to rotate, as far as I know, and rotating one turbine around one tube is a lot easier than rotating a gang of them around without their blades hitting something.

They're just keeping it simple. Some of the generator bodies are the size of a small bus, they just don't look like it from far away.

I'm not an engineer either, but I'd guess the single stem trunk is so that you don't have to hang the turbine way out in front of the tower (bending moment, and all that) to keep the propeller blades from hitting the tower below it. A single-stem trunk is purely vertical; however, the base is wider than the peak for three- or four-legged towers.

They are getting close now to maximum size because of materials science limitations (cost/benefit), and also because of the transportation limits mentioned in the article. Much larger ones could be built directly adjacent to a seaport dock then barged to a direct sea or coastal ins